Shock Waves (2015) 25:443–449
DOI 10.1007/s00193-015-0587-y
EDITORIAL
Supersonic flow control
S. B. Verma1 · A. Hadjadj2
Published online: 29 July 2015
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
1 Introduction
Shock wave-induced boundary layer interactions are
unavoidable in high-speed flows. The strong adverse pressure
gradient imposed by the shock on the incoming undisturbed
boundary layer may result in flow separation that is associated
with low-frequency oscillations of the separation shock (see
Figs. 1, 2, 3). The separation phenomenon therefore leads
to undesirable effects such as wall pressure loading, high
local wall heating, increased drag coefficient, reduced mass
flow ingestion, lower-pressure recovery and inlet unstart
conditions. On the other hand, shock wave/boundary layer
interaction (SWBLI) is also responsible for unsteady vor-
tex shedding and shock/vortex interaction, which are major
causes of broadband noise [1–5]. For instance, the pre-
diction of pressure fluctuations in the transonic regime is
particularly important in the vibro-acoustic design of launch
vehicles. Indeed, vibrations induced in the interior of the
vehicle may exceed design specifications, and cause payload
damage, as well as structural damage due to fatigue prob-
lems. Similarly, in rocket propulsion systems these effects
are also a matter of concern in supersonic propellant noz-
zles [7–9]. Therefore, a fundamental understanding of the
complex physical phenomena involved in such interactions
B A. Hadjadj
hadjadj@coria.fr
S. B. Verma
sbverma@nal.res.in
1
Experimental Aerodynamics Division (EAD), National
Aerospace Laboratories, Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research, Airport Road, PB 1779, Bangalore 560017, India
2 supersonic flow control methodologies that will help provid-
National Institute for Applied Sciences, University of
Normandy, CORIA UMR 6614 CNRS, 8 Avenue de
l’Université, 76800 Saint Etienne du Rouvray, France
is extremely important for the development of improved engi-
neering models and to attempt controlling their detrimental
effects.
Several studies on SWBLI were conducted in the past
[3,4]. Much of the early work was focused on under-
standing the dynamics of physical mechanisms driving the
flow unsteadiness and the underlying causes. Although the
mechanisms associated with SWBLI are quite complex and
not very well understood, the studies did suggest that the
low-frequency oscillations exhibit a wide range of spatial
and temporal scale frequencies lower than the temporal
scales of the incoming flow [3,5]. The latter seems to be
encouraging and opens up various avenues for flow con-
trol.
Recently, studies were channelized to apply flow control
techniques in order to alleviate or diminish the detrimen-
tal effects of flow separation. Various aspects of tran-
sonic/supersonic and hypersonic flows with different control
strategies (e.g., vanes, micro-ramps, micro-jets, synthetic
jets, energy deposition, plasma discharge, actuators, ramp
cavity, etc.) were attempted. The topic has received con-
siderable attention and has become an active subject of
research in the recent years. The capability to model and
control the complex physical phenomena typical of such
flows is a key to meet the requirement of enhanced perfor-
mance, reduction of sound emission (turbulence and flow
separation being the main source of airplane noise) and fuel
consumption constraints of next generation air transport sys-
tems and launchers, etc. Also, a fundamental understanding
of the complex physical phenomena involved in such flows
is extremely important. Therefore, the present thematic issue
focuses on the experimental results based on the study of
ing a basis for future work in this area.
123
444
Fig. 1 Schematic representation of an oblique shock impinging on a
turbulent boundary layer at M∞ = 2.3 and Reθ  5350. The incoming
boundary layer has a thickness of δ = 10.83 mm, with an incident-
shock angle β = 32.41◦ and a wedge deflection θ = 8◦ . The bottom
picture is based on the instantaneous density-gradient field, extracted
from an LES computation performed by the authors
Fig. 2 Illustration of shock/boundary layer interaction. Top image:
instantaneous 3D iso-surface of the second invariant of the velocity
gradient tensor Q = 0.01Q max colored by the density field; bottom
image turbulent velocity fluctuation showing the upstream boundary
layer, the reversal flow and the relaxation zone with vortex shedding.
From an LES computation performed by the authors
2 Supersonic flow control: a brief summary
Flow control was introduced by Prandtl at the time of the
development of the boundary layer theory and extensively
studied thereafter for applications to flows of interest for
123
S. B. Verma, A. Hadjadj
Fig. 3 Illustration of shock/boundary layer interaction. Top image
instantaneous long time wall-pressure signals taken upstream of the
interaction and at the recirculation zone; bottom image power spectral
density (PSD) of wall-pressure fluctuations normalized using its local
integral, plotted with the mean profile of the wall pressure (red line).
From an LES computation performed by the authors
aeronautics/aerospace industry. The main motivation behind
applying any flow control effort is to reduce the detrimen-
tal effects of flow separation or compressible mixing with
the intention of improving the overall performance. The first
and foremost step in this direction lies in altering the char-
acteristics of the incoming boundary layer by adding energy
to its mean velocity profile [10]. By doing so, the result-
ing relatively more energetic boundary layer becomes more
resistant to conditions imposed by the adverse pressure gradi-
ent, which helps to reduce the overall extent of the separation
and the associated flow unsteadiness. Present methods of
flow control rely primarily on the use of boundary-layer suc-
tion [11–13] or bleed [14] systems wherein the decelerating
or retarded boundary layer is either removed (suction) by
replacing it with a new, thinner, one or its growth is influ-
enced by adding mass flow into it (bleed). Although these
methods are very effective and have found several hardware
applications, their associated systems are quite complex. As
Supersonic flow control
Fig. 4 Schematic representation of a synthetic jet actuator in a blowing
and b suction pulsed processes
a result, there has always been an interest to explore alterna-
tive flow control techniques such as micro-mechanical vortex
generators (VGs), plasma- or air-jets, etc. In the latter cat-
egory, a synthetic jet can be produced by the interactions
of a train of vortices that are typically formed by alternat-
ing momentary ejection and suction of fluid across an orifice
such that the net mass flux is zero (see Fig. 4).
Seifert and Pack [15–17] studied the influence of excita-
tion frequency, amplitude, momentum coefficient and com-
pressibility in active control of separated flows’ generic
configurations (wall-mounted hump and airfoil) at high-
Reynolds numbers and at various Mach numbers. In the
presence of shock-induced flow separation, they observed
that flow excitation upstream of the shock was more effective
than at the foot. Moreover, they also found that periodic exci-
tation was less effective in controlling separation because of
compressibility effects. Vadillo et al. [18] also confirmed that
synthetic jet actuators are promising devices to control the
strength of shock waves and their unsteadiness as well as the
shock-induced separation due to SWBLI, and, therefore, are
a good candidate for achieving “hingeless” control to reduce
drag. On the other hand, McCormick [19,20] developed a
new concept, the so-called “directed synthetic jet”, whereby
energy is transferred to the boundary layer in the direction
tangential to the body surface. The effectiveness of the con-
445
cept was however shown only for leading-edge separation at
a very low Mach number. Aspects of low- and high-frequency
actuation, for aerodynamic flow control, were investigated by
Glezer et al. [21]. These authors discussed, in particular, the
relationship between the local instability mechanism of the
separating shear layer and the global instability resulting in
the shedding of large-scale coherent structures. The coupling
between the time periodic shedding of coherent structures
and the shear layer was found to be critical for separation
flow control over stalled airfoils (the response of a separated
flow to actuation frequency depends strongly on its relation to
the characteristic unstable frequencies of the separating shear
layer). Dandois et al. [22] investigated the frequency effect
of synthetic jet actuation on a separated flow over a rounded
ramp at a low Mach number. In particular, frequency forcing
close to the natural shedding frequency reduced separation,
while the latter increased at high frequency (corresponding to
an acoustic-mode operation of the jet). Passive and active (by
suction) techniques for the control of shock wave oscillations
and separated boundary layer interaction in a transonic chan-
nel flow were investigated by Galli et al. [23] who showed
that passive control had no effect on shock unsteadiness. LES
simulations of Franck and Colonius [24] confirmed a slight
loss of control effectiveness when comparing the results for
the same control parameters at low Mach numbers.
In the mechanical control devices category, rectangular
vanes were found to be very effective in controlling jets’ and
boundary layers’ separation [25] and were widely used in
various applications. However, these devices were generally
large in size (h/δ ≥ 1, h being the micro-ramp height and
δ the boundary-layer thickness) and introduced significant
device drag when used in high-speed aerodynamics (see Fig.
5a). A more recent approach for achieving effective flow
control is through the use of “micro” mechanical control
devices (with h < δ) that introduce mixing in the boundary
layer, are fail-safe and most importantly, are mechanically
simpler and rugged [10,26,27]. The boundary layer mixing
is achieved by the generation of streamwise vortices (co-
or counter-rotating) in the wake of these control devices,
near the wall (see Fig. 6). Although micro-VGs have the
added advantage of being mechanically rugged, simple and
fail-safe, the micro-jet (MJ) control technique, which also
provides similar flow control effectiveness, not only has the
flexibility of switching off and on [28] or “activating on
demand” but can also have the added advantage of being inte-
grated with transpiration systems as well [29]. The former
characteristic helps to eliminate the parasitic drag associ-
ated with micro-vortex generators (MVG) [25]. In fact, to
introduce similar effectiveness of control as micro-jets, the
MVGs perhaps would have to be designed much larger in
size (h > 0.5 δ). More recently, pulsed micro-jets (PMJ) or
resonance-enhanced micro-jets (REM) have also been found
very effective in suppressing certain flow frequencies such as
123
446
Fig. 5 Example of mechanical control devices
those in screeching free jets, impinging jets, etc [30]. Com-
pared to steady MJs, the PMJs are a more effective alternative
as these are more energy efficient and can be tuned to target
different frequencies. Other variants of PMJs are the piezo-
electric [30] and MEMS PMJs [31]. However, active flow
control devices, as already mentioned before, can be com-
plex, expensive and also difficult to implement and maintain
[25]. Various groups in USA [29–33], Europe [10,28,34,35],
UK [26,27], India [36,37] and China [38] are looking at dif-
ferent methods of shock-induced control in various areas of
research applications.
Despite the fact that a lot of research has been focussed
on flow control, it is still an open field in terms of control
optimization, configuration optimization and its effective-
ness for various shock-induced interactions. The flow physics
for various control device configurations needs to be studied
in detail and their benefits—investigated for different regimes
of interactions.
3 Thematic issue on supersonic flow control
The thematic issue focuses on theoretical and experimental
aspects of supersonic flow control, which includes various
studies reported by different contributors who have con-
ducted detailed investigations using different control devices
such as micro-ramps, vanes, shock control bumps, plasma
jets, micro-jets, etc. These control techniques were tested in
different interactions such as those induced by impinging
shock, circular cylinder and impinging jets to demonstrate
123
S. B. Verma, A. Hadjadj
their effectiveness. The issue includes two review articles on
micro-ramp controls and shock control bumps, respectively,
while the remaining four papers report the results of recent
research being conducted towards efficient implementation
of various flow control devices. It is to be noted that, in full
accordance with the Shock Waves Journal editorial policies,
all manuscripts of the present issue were rigorously peer-
reviewed by at least two independent referees, each of which
is an internationally recognized expert in the field.
In this framework, the review by Titchner and Babinsky
[39] gives an overview of the research conducted by vari-
ous experts the world over bringing out very strongly the
potential of mechanical vortex generators as a possible con-
trol device for mitigation of shock-induced separation. The
authors bring out two main important observations. Firstly,
the success of these control devices was reported more in
the transonic flow regime than in purely supersonic interac-
tions. This, however, does not imply that the effective control
of supersonic interactions is not possible. In this regard, the
study suggests more focussed research, especially for cases
where the extent of separation exceeds (5–10) δ, to prove the
effectiveness of such devices. Secondly, the detailed compar-
ative review shows that the effectiveness of counter-rotating
MVGs is better for D/d ≥ 4 (where D is the inter-VG spac-
ing) and h/δ between 0.2 and 0.5. The research status in this
field also indicates that the vane-type VG shapes are superior
in performance when compared to the ramp/wedge-type VGs
and, therefore, more innovative designs need to be looked
into to match the effectiveness of the former. Although noth-
ing concrete could be ascertained about control location, a
rough estimate indicates that this distance is to be somewhere
between (15–30) x/ h (where x is the distance of the control
location from the interaction).
Another experimental study on MVGs focuses on the
effects of MVG height and configuration in controlling a flare
induced laminar SWBLI [40]. The results were facilitated
by time-resolved streamwise surface heat transfer measure-
ments and high-speed schlieren imaging. The paper reports
that the MVG height plays a dominant role in intensify-
ing the flow fluctuations in the wake of the MVG device.
It is also interesting to note that the shape of the control
device seems insignificant for h/δ < 0.29 whereas for
0.29 < h/δ < 0.58, the shape seems to show some influ-
ence. However, the authors suggest that in order to minimize
the MVG-induced drag, the strong local interference effects,
the total pressure losses and the flow unsteadiness, the MVG
height should be kept approximately at 0.3.
In continuation to the research on mechanical control tech-
niques, the review by Bruce and Colliss [41], which once
again focuses on flow control in transonic regime, primarily
looks at a new class of control devices called shock control
bumps (SCB). Since the control in this device is based on the
generation of a system of weaker compression waves ahead
Supersonic flow control
Fig. 6 Example of micro-ramp with primary vortex pair
of the main shock, this type of control was seriously con-
sidered for application on the upper surface of the transonic
wing and in supersonic flows for intakes. The effectiveness
of this control device is based on the two important criteria
[41]: (i) their impact on drag at the optimal design (of SCB)
and at the optimal design point (of the aerofoil) and (ii) their
impact on off-design phenomena such as buffeting. Although
both 2-D and 3-D SCB show beneficial flow characteristics,
the performance benefit of the SCBs is mainly realized at
high values of lift coefficient (CL ) rather than at lower val-
ues, where a clean wing scores better [42,43]. This is true
for conventional supercritical aerofoils or wings. As a result,
it is envisaged that the true potential of SCB for drag reduc-
tion can only be realized when the next generation wings are
specifically designed to take advantage of the control bene-
fits offered by SCBs [44,45]. The flow characteristics from
the SCBs are also found to be very sensitive to shape and
angle of its ramp, crest and tail regions. Open challenges lie
in using SCB as smart vortex generators as well as under-
standing the impact of unsteadiness (inherent to buffeting)
on their performance and their effectiveness on swept wing
flows. The authors strongly suggest that the future of SCB
research should focus on active morphing for wing applica-
tions [46] and the use of SCBs as a control device in intakes
[47,48].
Active flow control—adding external energy into the
incoming boundary layer through plasma jets—is another
method was explored in the past [49]. The main idea here is
to lock the pulsing frequency of the jets to that of the shock
front to reduce the magnitude of the peak in power spectra in
the intermittent region of the interaction [33]. The study by
Greene et al. [50] on pulsed plasma jets in a compression cor-
ner induced SWBLI at Mach 3 reports a detailed investigation
on the optimal control location, jet configurations (variation
in pitch and skew angles) and pulsing frequency (2–4 kHz) to
447
control the separation [50]. The study uses surface oil streak
visualization and particle image velocimetry (PIV). Since
90 % of the plasma discharge energy goes into exciting the
vibrational modes of the gas and only 10 % is available for
jets, the momentum flux ratios of 0.6 were achievable [51].
This restricts the location of control close to the separation
(1.5 δ) as the effects of jets are seen to diminish abruptly
beyond 3 δ. A lower pitch angle of 20◦ combined with zero
skewed angle is reported to give the optimum configuration
for control. The effectiveness of control results in a decrease
in skin friction and overall thickness of the boundary layer
downstream of the interaction.
The effect of variation in pitch and skew angles was also
investigated by Verma et al. [52] but with an array of micro-
jets placed upstream (20 δ) of a circular cylinder induced
interaction in a Mach 2.18 flow. Earlier studies have shown
that the shock unsteadiness in the region of separation is
undesirable and was found to increase with increasing the
shock strength, resulting in undesirable unsteady pressure
loads [53–55]. The primary focus of the work is to control
the amplitude of the shock unsteadiness associated with these
interactions. The study is conducted using surface oil visual-
ization, spark schlieren imaging and real-time wall pressure
measurements using Kulite transducers. It is very encour-
aging to see that the control is sensitive to variations in
skew and pitch angles of the MJs. Various MJ configura-
tions not only show a reduction in the separation and the
bow-shock strengths as well as in the triple-point height but
also considerably bring down the peak r.m.s. value in the
intermittent region of the separation. The 90◦ pitched MJ in
zigzag configuration show the best control for injection at the
tunnel stagnation pressure. However, at higher injection pres-
sures, the effectiveness of this control configuration reduces
primarily due to increase in its obstruction component as
well as due to increase in the spanwise jet-to-jet interac-
tion. At these pressures, pitching or skewing the jets to 45◦
enhances their control effectiveness. The modified jet con-
figurations however, are seen to lose their ability to control
the interaction as effectively as a 90◦ pitched MJ primarily
due to the associated modifications in the wake flow devel-
opment.
Another interesting contribution concerns the use of
micro-jets to control the shear-layer growth characteristics in
supersonic free and impinging jets [56]. This group in Florida
State University has been working on the development of
both steady and pulsed jets for almost a decade now. Both
acoustic and PIV measurements were conducted on control
of a Mach 1.5 ideally expanded free and impinging jets using
an array of circumferentially placed 16 steady MJs 400 μm
in diameter and with injection angles of 60◦ [57]. The com-
bined mass flow from the MJ configuration is only 0.5 %
of the main jets [58,59]. The velocity field measurements
indicate that the MJs result in a rapid nonlinear thickening
123
448
of the shear-layer growth, particularly near the nozzle exit,
as opposed to the uncontrolled case. A detailed linear stabil-
ity analysis shows that while the convection velocities remain
largely unaffected, the nonlinear thickening of the shear layer
is responsible for the reduction in the unstable growth rates
over the entire range of frequencies with control. For imping-
ing jet applications, the control results in a near elimination
of the impingement tones and reduction in broadband noise,
whereas for the free jet a 4.5dB reduction in overall sound
pressure levels (OASPL) is indicated in the peak noise radi-
ation direction. The authors emphasize that the MJ control
has a strong potential, not only in disrupting the feedback
mechanism inherent to resonant flows, but also in modifying
the growth of coherent structures as well as turbulent mixing
in free jets.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank all authors for their valu-
able contributions, and also reviewers for their useful comments and
assistance. Special thank to Prof. Evgeny Timofeev who helped us with
the technical management of this issue.
References
1. Kistler, A.L.: Fluctuating wall pressure under a separated super-
sonic flow. J. Acous. Soc. Am. 36(3), 543–550 (1964)
2. Dolling, D., Dussauge, J.P.: Fluctuating wall-pressure measure-
ments. Fernholz, H.H., Smits, A.J., Dussauge, J.P., Finley, P.J.
(eds.) A Survey of Measurements and Measuring Techniques
in Rapidly Distorted Compressible Turbulent Boundary Layers,
AGARDograph, 315, NATO, Neuilly s/Seine (1989)
3. Dolling, D.S.: Fifty years of shock-wave/boundary-layer interac-
tion research: what next? AIAA J. 39, 1517–1531 (2001)
4. Délery, J., Marvin, J.G.: Shock-wave boundary layer interactions.
AGARDograph 280 (1996). ISBN 92-835-159-6
5. Hadjadj, A.: Large-eddy simulation of shock/boundary-layer inter-
action. AIAA J. 50(12), 2919–2927 (2012)
6. Dupont, P., Haddad, C., Debiève, J.-F.: Space and time organization
in a shock-induced separated boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 559,
255–277 (2006)
7. Mouronval, A.-S., Hadjadj, A., Kudryavtsev, A.N., Vandromme,
D.: Numerical investigation of transient nozzle flow. Shock Waves
12(5), 403–411 (2003)
8. Hadjadj, A., Onofri, M.: Nozzle flow separation. Shock Waves
19(3), 163–169 (2009)
9. Hadjadj, A., Perrot, Y., Verma, S.: Numerical study of
shock/boundary layer interaction in supersonic overexpanded noz-
zles. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 42, 158–168 (2015)
10. Blinde, P.L., Humble, R.A., Oudheusden, B.W., Scarano, F.: Effects
of micro-ramps on a shockwave/turbulent boundary layer interac-
tion. Shock Waves 19, 507–520 (2009)
11. Obery, L., Cubbinson, R.: Effectiveness of Boundary-Layer
Removal Near Throat of Ramp-Type Side Inlet at Free-Stream
Mach Number of 2.0. NACA RM-E54I14 (1954)
12. Wong, W.: The Application of Boundary Layer Suction to Sup-
press Strong Shock-Induced Separation in Supersonic Inlets. AIAA
Paper 74-1063 (1974)
13. Pasquariello, V., Grilli, M., Hickel, S., Adams, N.: Large-eddy sim-
ulation of passive shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction control.
Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 49, 116–127 (2014)
123
S. B. Verma, A. Hadjadj
14. Fukuda, M.K., Roshotko, E., Higst, W.R.: Bleed effects on
shock/boundary-layer interactions in supersonic mixed compres-
sion inlets. J. Aircraft 14(2), 151–156 (1977)
15. Seifert, A., Pack, L.G: Active Control of Separated Flows on
Generic Configurations at High Reynolds Numbers. AIAA Paper
99-3403 (1999)
16. Seifert, A., Pack, L.G.: Sweep and Compressibility Effects on
Active Flow Control at High Reynolds Number. AIAA Paper 00-
0410 (2000)
17. Seifert, A.: Closed-Loop Active Flow Control Systems: Actuators.
Active Flow Control, NNFM 95 Springer Verlag, Ed. King (2007)
18. Vadillo, J.L., Agarwal, R.K., Hassan, A.A.: Active Control of
Shock/Boundary Layer Interaction in Transonic Over Airfoils.
AIAA Paper 05-0486 (2005)
19. McCormick, D.C.: Boundary Layer Separation Control with
Directed Synthetic Jet. AIAA Paper 00-0519 (2000)
20. McCormick, D.C., Lozyniak, S.A., MacMartin, D.G., Lorber, D.F.:
Compact, High-Order Boundary Layer Separation Control Actua-
tion Development. ASME Paper 18279 (2001)
21. Glezer, A., Amitay, M.: Synthetic jets. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 34,
503–529 (2002)
22. Dandois, J., Garnier, E., Sagaut, P.: Numerical simulation of active
separation control by synthetic jet. J. Fluid Mech. 574, 25–58
(2007)
23. Galli, A., Corbel, B., Bur, R.: Control of forced shock-wave oscil-
lations and separated boundary layer interaction. Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 9, 653–660 (2005)
24. Franck, J.A., Colonius, T.: Compressible large-eddy simulation of
separation control on a wall-mounted hump. AIAA J. 48(6), 1098–
1107 (2010)
25. Panaras, A.G., Lu, F.K.: Micro-vortex generators for shock
wave/boundary layer interactions. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 74, 16–47
(2015)
26. Babinsky, H., Makinson, N. J., Morgan, N. J.: Micro-Vortex Gen-
erator Flow Control for Supersonic Engine Inlets. AIAA Paper
07-0521 (2007)
27. Lee, S., Loth, E., Babinsky, H.: Normal shock boundary layer con-
trol with various vortex generator geometries. Comput. Fluids 49,
233–246 (2011)
28. Szwabe, R.: Shock wave induced separation control by streamwise
vortices. J. Therm. Sci. 14(3), 249–253 (2005)
29. Kamotani, Y., Greber, I.: Experiments on a turbulent jet in cross-
flow. AIAA J. 10(11), 1425–1429 (1972)
30. Uzun, A., Solomon, J.T., Foster, C.H., Oates, W.S., Hussaini, M.Y.,
Alvi, F.S.: Flow physics of a pulsed microjet actuator for high-speed
flow control. AIAA J. 51(12), 2894–2918 (2013)
31. Hogue, J., Solomon, J., Hays, M., Alvi F., Oates, W.: Broadband
Pulsed Flow Using Piezoelectric Micro-jets. In: Proceedings of
SPIE 7643, Active and Passive Smart Structures and Integrated
Systems 2010, 76431V (2010)
32. Alvi, F.S., Elavarasan, R., Shih, C., Garg, G., Krothapalli, A.: Con-
trol of Supersonic Impinging Jet Flows Using Microjets. AIAA
Paper 00-2236 (2000)
33. Narayanaswamy, V., Raja, L.L., Clemens, N.T.: Characterization
of a high-frequency pulsed-plasma jet actuator for supersonic flow
control. AIAA J. 48(2), 297–305 (2010)
34. Bur, R., Coponet, D., Carpels, Y.: Separation control by vortex
generator devices in a transonic channel flow. Shock Waves 19,
521–530 (2009)
35. Souverein, L.J., Debiève, J.F.: Effect of air jet vortex generators on
a shock wave boundary layer interaction. Exp. Fluids 49, 1053–
1064 (2010)
36. Verma, S.B., Manisankar, C.: Shock-wave boundary-layer inter-
action control on a compression ramp using steady micro air-jets.
AIAA J. 50(12), 2753–2764 (2012)
Supersonic flow control
37. Verma, S.B., Manisankar, C., Raju, C.: Control of shock unsteadi-
ness in shock boundary-layer interaction on a compression corner
using mechanical vortex generators. Shock Waves 22(4), 327–339
(2012)
38. Li, C.H., Tan, H., Wang, D.P.: Influence of secondary flow injection
angle on a fluidic shock control technique. J. Propuls. Power 31(2),
674–684 (2015)
39. Titchner, N., Babinsky, H.: A review of the use of vortex genera-
tors for mitigating shock induced separation. Shock Waves 25(5),
(2015). doi:10.1007/s00193-015-0551-x
40. Estruch-Samper, D., Vanstone, L., Hillier, R., Ganapathisubramani,
B.: Micro vortex generator control of axisymmetric high-speed
laminar boundary layer separation. Shock Waves 25(5), (2015).
doi:10.1007/s00193-014-0514-7
41. Bruce, P.J.K., Colliss, S. P.: Review of research into shock con-
trol bumps. Shock Waves 25(5), (2015). doi:10.1007/s00193-014-
0533-4
42. Milholen, II W.E., Owens, L.R.: On the Application of Con-
tour Bumps for Transonic Drag Reduction. AIAA-Paper 05-0462
(2005)
43. Qin, N., Wong, W.S., LeMoigne, A.: Three-dimensional contour
bumps for transonic wing drag reduction. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
Part G 222(5), 619–629 (2008)
44. McGowan, A.R.: AVST morphing project research summaries in
fiscal year 2001. NASA/TM-2002-211769 (2002)
45. Stanewsky, E., Délery, J., Fulker, J., de Matteis, P. Synopsis of the
project Euroshock II. Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and
Multidisciplinary Design: Drag Reduction by Shock and Boundary
Layer Control—Results of the Project EUROSHOCK II, Vol. 80.
Springer, Berlin (2002)
46. Stanewsky, E.: Aerodynamic benefits of adaptive wing technology.
Aerosp. Sci. Tech. 4, 439–452 (2000)
47. Babinsky, H., Ogawa, H.: SBLI control for wings and inlets. Shock
Waves 18, 89–96 (2008)
48. Kim, S.D.: Aerodynamic design of a supersonic inlet with a para-
metric bump. J. Aircr. 46(1), 198–202(2009)
449
49. Grossman, K.R., Cybyk, B.Z., VanWie, D.M.: Sparkjet actuators
for flow control. Proceedings of 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and Exhibit (2013). doi:10.2514/6.2003-57
50. Greene, B.R., Clemens, N.T., Magari, P., Micka, D.: Control of
mean separation in shock boundary layer interaction using pulsed
plasma jets. Shock Waves 25(5), (2015). doi:10.1007/s00193-014-
0524-5
51. Narayanaswamy, V., Raja, L.L., Clemens, N.T.: Control of
unsteadiness of a shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction
by using a pulsed-plasma-jet actuator. Phys. Fluids 24, 076101
(2012)
52. Verma, S.B., Manisankar, C., Akshara, P.: Control of shock-wave
boundary layer interaction using steady micro-jets. Shock Waves
25(5), (2015). doi:10.1007/s00193-014-0508-5
53. Dolling, D.S., Brusniak, L.: Separation shock motion in fin, cylin-
der, and compression ramp-induced turbulent interactions. AIAA
J. 27(6), 734–742 (1989)
54. Hadjadj, A., Dussauge, J.P.: Shock wave boundary layer interac-
tion. Shock Waves 19, 449–452 (2009)
55. Verma, S.B.: Experimental study of flow unsteadiness in a Mach 9
compression ramp interaction using a laser schlieren system. Meas.
Sci. Technol. J. 14, 989–997 (2003)
56. Davis, T.B., Kumar, R.: Shear layer characteristics of supersonic
free and impinging jets. Shock Waves 25(5), (2015). doi:10.1007/
s00193-014-0540-5
57. Alvi, F., Shih, C., Elavarasan, R., Garg, G., Krothapalli, A.: Con-
trol of supersonic impinging jet flows using supersonic microjets.
AIAA J. 41(7), 1347–1355 (2003)
58. Alvi, F.S., Lou, H., Shih, C., Kumar, R.: Experimental study of
physical mechanisms in the control of supersonic impinging jets
using microjets. J. Fluid Mech. 613, 55–83 (2008)
59. Lou, H.: Control of supersonic impinging jets using microjets.
Ph.D. thesis, Florida State University (2005)
123